≡ Menu

D. Hearsay

7th circuit court of appeals decision Habeas – Certificate of Appealability We pause briefly to note the district court’s error in denying a certificate of appealability in this case. The statute provides that a certificate of appealability may issue “only if the applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.”… Read more

{ 0 comments }

Gordon Sussman v. Jenkins, 7th Cir No. 09-3940, 4/1/11 7th circuit decision, granting habeas relief in State v. Sussman, 2007AP687-CR; in chambers opinion on stay Habeas – Confrontation – Rape Shield and Prior False Allegation The state court unreasonably restricted Sussman’s cross-examination of his chief accuser, and thus violated his right to confrontation, by precluding… Read more

{ 0 comments }

State v. Anthony M. Smith, 2009AP2867-CR, District 1/4, 3/3/11 court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); for Smith: Rodney Cubbie, Syovata K. Edari; case activity Trial court’s limitations on cross-examination with respect to State witness’s “prior mental condition” or use of medications (prescribed for his Bipolar Disorder and Attention Deficit Disorder) upheld as proper exercise… Read more

{ 0 comments }

Michigan v. Bryant, USSC No. 09-150 At respondent Richard Bryant’s trial, the court admitted statements that the victim, Anthony Covington, made to police officers who discovered him mortally wounded in a gas station parking lot. … We hold that the circumstances of the interaction between Covington and the police objectively indicate that the “primary purpose of… Read more

{ 0 comments }

State v. Mark D. Jensen, 2011 WI App 3; prior history: 2007 WI 26; for Jensen: Terry W. Rose, Christopher William Rose, Michael D. Cicchini; case activity; (Jensen BiC not posted); State Resp.; Jensen Reply Confrontation – Generally The Confrontation Clause regulates testimonial statements only, such that nontestimonial statements are excludable only under hearsay and other evidence-rule ¶¶22-26, citing Giles v… Read more

{ 0 comments }

Docket Decision Below (New Mexico supreme court) Question Presented: Whether the Confrontation Clause permits the prosecution to introduce testimonial statements of a nontestifying forensic analyst through the in-court testimony of a supervisor or other person who did not perform or observe the laboratory analysis described in the statements. Cert. Petition State’s Brief Opposing Cert SCOTUSblog… Read more

{ 0 comments }

decision below: unpublished; prior On Point post; for Rhodes: John J. Grau Issue (from Table of Pending Cases): Whether a criminal defendant’s constitutional right to confront a witness in cross-examination was infringed, and, if so, whether the infringement was harmless error. Homicide case, tried on State’s theory Rhodes had motive to kill victim for beating Rhodes’… Read more

{ 0 comments }

Docket Decision Below (New Mexico supreme court) Question Presented: Whether the Confrontation Clause permits the prosecution to introduce testimonial statements of a nontestifying forensic analyst through the in-court testimony of a supervisor or other person who did not perform or observe the laboratory analysis described in the statements. Cert. Petition State’s Brief Opposing Cert SCOTUSblog… Read more

{ 0 comments }
RSS